Building new Runways

English Boards Suggestions and Ideas
61

It is beyond my understanding why some people still keep hijacking the RUNWAY thread and keep using word "widebody aircraft" or its alternative "bigger aircraft". Well said yukawa! This discussion is not about using widebody aircraft on 500km hops!

Matth may halt me (as this is his thread) but please stick to the topic of pros and cons of developing and building new runways. Please keep "bigger aircraft", "frequencies" and other stuff off the discussion here, this thread is not about those topics. As was correctly pointed out several posts above, people are not giving up slots they already have, they would reschedule new routes with those slots if smaller aircraft or more frequencies do not work any more.

It would be like talking about a new road without talking about traffic... (well... a common practice in local governments where i live)... There are no pros and cons on developing and building new runways without discussing the traffic itself. Because traffic is (should be) the result of building a new runway. And traffic consists of frequencies and øaircraftsize...

62

Unfortunately, no one yet responded to my request to explain to me, what real benefit would come out of adding more slots (in whatever way) other than delaying congestions a bit longer. I doubt everyone is agreeing with my assessment, that more slots at congested airports would only make this harder for all newly founded airlines in mid-term and long-term?

A few thoughts.

First, provided that individual airlines can’t control the upgrade process (which is why I’d prefer a system where hefty landing charges on all users are channeled into an eventual upgrade), I think that smaller airlines, or even just other airlines, could get into the expanded airport. If the fees stay pretty high even after the airport expands, major airlines will have to think carefully about whether they pick up all the new slots (i.e. it would only be worth taking the slots if they had enough new, profitable routes to fly using them).

Second, I think a landing fees based approach would create a strong incentive for major airlines to use their airports a lot more efficiently (e.g. flying 10 A321s a day on a major route, rather than 25 E195s), which may also allow other airlines to pick up some slots.

Third, I think a landing fees based approach adds some more realism to the game, by making it a bad idea to flood major hubs with small jets and turboprops.

Fourth, as has been said above far more eloquently than I could, I think that a Simulation game should recognise that airlines can and do have an effect on the world, especially by driving airport growth at major hubs.

More broadly, perhaps you could put some extra rules in place to encourage/enable smaller airlines to pick up slots in recently expanded slots, modelled on the kinds of real-world incentives that airports do offer. For example, you could prevent airlines that are already using more than X slots at the airport from taking more slots for X days. And/or you could not impose the increased landing charges on airlines using less than X slots, giving them a commercial incentive. Anything is possible.

63

Hi Reeve, thanks for answering.

First, provided that individual airlines can't control the upgrade process (which is why I'd prefer a system where hefty landing charges on all users are channeled into an eventual upgrade), I think that smaller airlines, or even just other airlines, could get into the expanded airport. If the fees stay pretty high even after the airport expands, major airlines will have to think carefully about whether they pick up all the new slots (i.e. it would only be worth taking the slots if they had enough new, profitable routes to fly using them).

 

Yes, of course, everyone can plan new routes, but big airlines in general can make a lot more a/c available to throw at these slots than small airlines can. so small airlines will only get a few slots. However, now there is a higher total number of flights they have to compete with, making it even less likely to succeed. And of course, there would be a demand for new flights, or otherwise, we wouldn't be looking at a slot congested airport, thus never expanding it, in the first place.

I do see potential for other big airlines to move into an airport, though. However, depending on how many new slots become available, you have to keep in mind, that the pax demand is not increasing. So you now have more capacity offered, while demand is the same, making you more reliant on connections and transfer pax. Well, who is in a pol position there? the big airline already "owning" that airport. So even if other airlines move in, the top dog can, due to higher number of already available connections, compete from an advantagous position.

Regarding 2 and 3, they are on the topic of landing fees, so I will skip those here. Regarding 4, I agree with you, but don't see its character as a point of argumentation.

The last one certainly is a way. Depending on the system of how a new rwy would come to be, it might look strange, though, if the airline paying the most for it (even or particuallarly if the rwy is financed via landing fees) can't use it at all or to a very small degree.

64

BTW, it seems, in the discussion everybody assume there is one big player and all the others are tiny small new beginners. I believe, in most existing worlds that is not so true. Most players are already quite big, because it is quite challenging to get started on a mature world.

Now with that in mind, it would also open up new game play for those bigger players, having a means to attack a fat cat on his own hub. And while two are fighting, a few opportunities might and will open up for newbies as well.

So @Yukawa: It would rejuvenate the game play on existing worlds for existing players, as well open up entry points for new players. In the longer end, it will probably not revolutionize the game, but I am convinced, that it will extend the life of servers in a positive way.

65

Excuse me for not reading through the entire thread. So this is just a quick response to Matth’s initial post.

I get a headache thinking about investing big cash just to help the competition. I think the one with the most time and cash at hand can catch most slots this way. I’d hate to invest 1billion for a new runway and to miss out on the slots because of a lack of time at “ready” date (I do have a wife, kid and hobbies…)

I’m asking for some kind of “ROI” here. Being it cash or an advantage of some kind.

Here’s my suggestion:

  1. Costs of the runway

I’m not a fan of the suggssted “100m$ per each demand-bar”. That’s far from reality.

What kind of runway do I want? How many slots would it offer (taxiways, high-speed exits etc.)? Etc.pp…

Let’s assume the length is a fixed database entry, so the new runway must have that very same length again. This is the first factor for price. (Of course if Martin would manage to make it dynamic, we could use that custom entry as factor)

Number of slots per block needs to be selectable. I suggest 1 to 6. That’s the next and most important price factor. How about 100m$*(x slots/block)^1.5?

1 slot would be 100m$

3 slots 520m$

6 slots 1470m$

  1. The return on my investment (runway) or granted advantage
  • Either I’m getting a share of the landing fees payed by everyone at the airport in question

So if the airport has 6 slots/block and I build a runway with 3 slots/block I’m getting 33% of all landing fees paid.

  • Or I’m granted either some kind of advantage like advance scheduling pre-release of some kind or I can reserve a fix number of slots/block for my holding (for big dollars of course)

Example:

I build a runway in NUE: Available Slots/block in NUE: 6

The runway I want to build also should have 6 slots/block: costs 1.47billion$

New capacity at NUE: 12 slots/block

My return of the investment: 6/12*100% = 50% of all landing fees paid.

With a 321 I pay 245$ for landing, so granted all slots would be taken by 321s, I’d receive 612247245$=2.96m$ per week. Not much but still something. Might be adjusted…

As for a possible reservation of slots:

Each reserved slot/block might be charged similar to runway costs.

Runway with 6 slots of which I’d reserve 3: 1470m$+520m$=1.99billion$.

Thoughts?

66

One more thing…

I’m concerned about possible exploits of this.

I run two holdings. The younger needs slots for expansion, the older sits on quite some billion dollars in cash.

How would the runway thing be handled here concerning holding interaction?

67

Interesting suggestion. I understand the logic behind increased cost, though the economies of scale should make it a decreasing cost as slots increase. But I understand your (unspoken) logic that additional taxiways etc must be built for more slots.

But let's say I want a 3 slot runway, I would be better off building 1-slot runway 3 times, instead of one 3-slot runway.

Is your runway cost constant? Or would it change by the airport size? My suggestion of 100 MM was per-bar, would that mean that a 6-slot runway at a 10-bar airport would cost 14.7 billion?

One more thing...

I’m concerned about possible exploits of this.

I run two holdings. The younger needs slots for expansion, the older sits on quite some billion dollars in cash.

How would the runway thing be handled here concerning holding interaction?

I think this was not given much thought, but it's similar to situation when you have two holdings and you lease aircraft in one, after some time you release the aircraft back to AirLeaseCo, and you can re-lease it with the second holding.

A possible "condition" could be that you cannot build a runway in a) HUB city of any HQ city of airline on a second/third holding; and B ) city where any airline from second/third holding holds more than 33% of slots (the number could be variable).

68

2. The return on my investment (runway) or granted advantage

  • Either I’m getting a share of the landing fees payed by everyone at the airport in question

So if the airport has 6 slots/block and I build a runway with 3 slots/block I’m getting 33% of all landing fees paid.

  • Or I’m granted either some kind of advantage like advance scheduling pre-release of some kind or I can reserve a fix number of slots/block for my holding (for big dollars of course)

I disagree with this entirely. The last thing we need is airlines to actually start owning airports, pre-registering slots, etc. It would pretty much ruin the game for everyone else.

No one is pointing a gun at you and forcing you to invest. If you don't feel the investment is worth it that's fine. But investing is completely voluntary and shouldn't make you entitled to special privileges.

69

Is your runway cost constant? Or would it change by the airport size? My suggestion of 100 MM was per-bar, would that mean that a 6-slot runway at a 10-bar airport would cost 14.7 billion?

This sounds great, I would be willing to pay.

Though I would also like to suggest that alliances can pay for the sum together by having a fundraiser and then the entire alliance pays for the runways. There could be a similar feature with terminals that the alliance has a fundraiser.

70

Christian, to do so, functioning of alliances would need to be re-worked from the ground up.

I suggested a possible "fundraiser", similar to current IPO, which probably would be as close as it could get. Airlines subscribe participation in runway building. Best case scenarios, this "runway enterprise" would get % of landing fees, further on distributed to the participating stakeholders.

I cannot imagine Martin implementing some alliance accounting, alliance bank account, etc. just to get the runways built.

71

'fundraiser' is a bad idea. when a large airline bankrupt, all the runways will become AS properties or simply close. could be hard to handle. this problem will also occur when the alliance manages the runway, but i think it will be more flexible if an alliance handles it because you may transfer to the runways to the remaining holdings. also, if AS takes over the runways,  you can have old players build tons of runways before bankruptcy when they decide to leave the game world. might be good for players, but sounds ridiculous if you put it in the real world

BTW, the alliance function should be improved a little ;). now it nearly has no impact at all 

72

I specifically wanted to have the player that invests in the runway to not have any other gain of it, than to get more slots. While I do understand the logic behind it (who pays, should get a direct return), my rationale was that it should not be something to make big players stronger and stronger.

Yes, a big player with lot's of money on hand, will most likely have enough cash to also fill the additional slots, yet any medium size player should also be able to do just that, once he learns that there's new runway on the way. If we want to "curb" the big player further, why not restrict the investor further? How about, you can only invest in a runway, if all (or let's say 95%) your aircraft have a running schedule for more than a month. And the player gets will face double the production times of any new aircraft ordered for a specific time. Thus, all other players get a chance.

Yes, that makes it not very attractive for somebody to invest. Though I'm sure, there are enough players that have so much money, that it doesn't matter to them to lose a couple billions.

Although off topic, I would also love to see an alliance fee (to be defined by the alliance) with which money the alliance could do certain things (build terminals, runways, buy airplanes and lease them out, etc.).

@TWAAir: If the airline or alliance gets bankrupt, the runway just falls back to AS and that's it. Wouldn't be such a big problem I suppose

73

Interesting suggestion. I understand the logic behind increased cost, though the economies of scale should make it a decreasing cost as slots increase. But I understand your (unspoken) logic that additional taxiways etc must be built for more slots.

But let’s say I want a 3 slot runway, I would be better off building 1-slot runway 3 times, instead of one 3-slot runway.

Is your runway cost constant? Or would it change by the airport size? My suggestion of 100 MM was per-bar, would that mean that a 6-slot runway at a 10-bar airport would cost 14.7 billion?

I think this was not given much thought, but it’s similar to situation when you have two holdings and you lease aircraft in one, after some time you release the aircraft back to AirLeaseCo, and you can re-lease it with the second holding.

A possible “condition” could be that you cannot build a runway in a) HUB city of any HQ city of airline on a second/third holding; and B ) city where any airline from second/third holding holds more than 33% of slots (the number could be variable).

Of course, I should have mentioned that with the suggested costs I had a limit of some kind in mind, like only two runways per user-account and airport.

As for the increasing costs per slot, I was trying to find something that would model reality in an overly simllified way.

While the most important and biggest cost contributor (geographical and geological situation) can’t be modeled I was trying to find something else.

So here’s what I’m trying to model:

A 1 slot/block runway basically could be just an upgrade of an existing paralleling taxiway.

A 6 slots/block (that’s 72 slots per hour!) would necessarily be a runway that would have to be operated fully independently from other runways. I think the required separation is 2,000ft (?)

So this would place the new runway WAY outside the existing perimeter fence. In good old Europe at least. Costs would explode.

Edit:

Yes, my runways would be cost constant as I see not much relation between airport size and runway costs. Particularly not between demand bars and costs.

Though I could live with a certain factor.

Maybe 1 for the smallest dirt strip, 1.5 for a 5-bar and 2 for a mega-airport. So a 6-slot rwy at ATL would cost 2.94billion.

74

I recently posted a new idea in the German part of the forum, and I wanted to share the idea also here to get a broader input on it.

Existing games worlds start to become at one point or another by a few big, dominant players that fill most slots on the airports and make it difficult for other players to enter the world.

...

Hi,

I agree that big airlines fill most slots at major airports and make it difficult for new airlines to fly to these airports. But extra runways will allow these big airlines to grow even bigger. And building an extra runway at a major airport will have a rather perverted side effect...

At this moment a new player on an established server looks for a secondary airport. As all major airports have few free slots, he is happy if he can launch a few flights to a few big airports. So his only choice is to build a network that depends on connecting secondary airports through his hub.

When extra runways start appearing at the major airports, extra flights will be launched. And unless these new runways appear at the same time, all the  resulting new flights will go to secondary airports. A new runway in Heathrow will not result in extra flights to Frankfurt because Frankfurt has no free slots. So you'll see more flights to Marseille, Venice and Tunis. And when one month later Frankfurt gets an extra runway, you will also see more new flights to Marseille, Venice and Tunis.

On the long term more runways in major airports will cause more congestion in regional airports. Secondary airports will end up with less slots than now, and more flights to compete with for a new player.

If big airlines use too many slots, creating more slots is not the solution. Either you limit the number of slots an airline (holding) can use at a given airport, or you make it more challenging to grow big airlines.

At this moment slots are the main limited resource in the game. Extra slots will produce extra growth. And most of that growth will go to established airlines.

Mind you, if you want more free slots you could also reduce passenger demand. Airlines can sit on their slots, but they have to compete for passengers.

Jan

75

Interesting thread to follow. I do understand all points in this, and personally - I would love more slots available at some of my hubs, especially with my cargo company.

But where do we draw the line? If we should be allowed to buy/develop new runways, which do not exist in the real world, should one also be allowed to develop new airplanes? I mean why not?

I think it’s a dangerous path. I like the realism, as it simulates the real world. And I can imagine some of the issues we are already trying to fight (exploiting new gameworlds etc.), will just be even worse, as these players can use a new runway to obtain more advantage/power.

So if AS choose to add the option "build new runway", we should expect "build new airport", "develop new airplane" too. Because that's basically the same. Is that what we wish? In that case, please keep it, at a new gameworld, so that we're not forced to play with it :-)

76

I think it's a bit far fetched to compare runways with aircraft development. Just for comparison, how easy it is to build a new Runway VS build a new aircraft.

77

double post

78

I like Banff's point actually.

How about getting the 757-200PF produced again? ;)

79

Come on, give me a break. It doesn't mean, that if we add one thing, than it automatically means free for wall...

Adding new aircraft would be a much more difficult thing to do. You can just put your wishlist together, irrespective of physics? I want a plan, for 1000 pax, that flies three times around the world and has a turnaround of 5 minutes?? And all for 2A$ please. Ohh, and of course it has to fly supersonic too...

80

Come on, give me a break. It doesn't mean, that if we add one thing, than it automatically means free for wall...

Adding new aircraft would be a much more difficult thing to do. You can just put your wishlist together, irrespective of physics? I want a plan, for 1000 pax, that flies three times around the world and has a turnaround of 5 minutes?? And all for 2A$ please. Ohh, and of course it has to fly supersonic too...

It's a bit off topic, but since it's your thread, i would play along.. :) to be fair, one could also say making new aircraft might be more possible than adding new runway in existing airports. While both takes hefty sum of money to make it happen, each of them require different other ingredients. Aircraft development require technology, a thing that is evolving - it takes time and probably a long one, while adding runway require space, something that is static in nature. Even the mega airport Dubai International can't be expanded and they build new Al Maktoum International some 30 km south-west.

So imho, it's not too far-fetched to compare adding new runway vs build new airport vs develop new aircraft type, the intangible factors involve unknown complexities. So yeah, like @Banff, it's a dangerous path to pursue in virtually realistic simulation. Not to mention the possible exploit opportunity. If it ever happen, please keep it on new gameworld. :)